Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Right and wrong are also poor terms to describe the state of science over time, since they are absolute terms, when the correctness is usually fuzzier.
And in order for a new theory to be "right" and the old one to be "wrong", the new theory has to be able to explain ALL the phenomenon that the old one did....
|
I agree with the above wholeheartedly. So, why not let the scientists debate this in a civilized manner without political interventions, without threats of institutional ostracizing and boycott and, most importantly, without media mob? The information posted by The Fonz is not Facebook crap; it is really happening to scientists that dare to be critical.
I was absolutely shocked to see that 67% of the respondents feel absolutely convinced about the primacy of human influence on climate change and only 5% feeling unsure (as most of us should feel) as an example of social media effect on minds. It is pretty obvious that none of the posters are climate scientists and they have very little comprehension of the subject other than the catchy report snippets they get from Google. Look at the immediate reactions to my post: I've been quickly labeled a "climate denier", whatever the f... that means (someone that doesn't believe in climate?); someone that doesn't understand the difference between climate and weather; and, generally, someone who just doesn't get it. That is a caricature of what's happening to the modern scientific debate, unfortunately.